Need to Align Working Methods with 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Focus at Meeting of Second Committee
Some Delegates Express Concern Consultations Had Not Provided Way Forward
The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) concluded the work of its seventieth session today, amid pointed calls for it to align its work methods and plans with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and strong concerns that entrenched differences over those tactical processes risked side-lining it from the important work ahead.
Chair Andrej Logar (Slovenia) said a review of the Committee’s agenda and working methods — carried out on separate consultation tracks — had been inspired by the need to ensure it would contribute effectively to the implementation of the 2030 development framework. In the area of working methods, co-facilitators had put forward a proposal for improving time management, the submission of draft texts for consultation and ideas on negotiations, plenary debates, keynote speakers, side events, joint meetings, documentation and programme budget implications.
On the agenda track, he said, co-facilitators had prepared a proposal to reframe items around four “broad chapters” of macroeconomic policy questions; sustainable development and poverty eradication; follow-up to United Nations Conferences; and United Nations system-wide coherence.
While much ground had been covered, “we have not yet reached our destination”, he said. He had provided a summary of the discussions to incoming Chair Triansyah Djani (Indonesia) and suggested that he advance discussions to ensure that work built on the critical gains made. The proposals on the table comprised a real step in the right direction, he said. “They need to be celebrated and protected.”
When the floor was opened for comments, speakers around the room decried that the months-long consultation process had not yielded consensus on a way forward. It was vital to consider the impact of the 2030 Agenda on the Committee’s work, many said, stressing that it could not reach full potential by adopting a business-as-usual approach.
The representative of the United States said the Committee’s inability to focus on priority issues was deeply troubling. The lack of dialogue and an “undisciplined, unworkable” schedule had forced her Government to refuse to engage on the last six resolutions introduced after the formal deadline, an unprecedented move. While consultations should have led to “common sense steps”, inertia and “tepid platitudes” had won out. “We do not see value in endlessly negotiating over these vital issues” and papering over the serious challenges to be addressed. The proposals were balanced, but the United States was not willing to use them as a starting point to “water down” future negotiations. It was now forced to examine stronger measures to revitalize the Committee.
The representative of the European Union Delegation said the two texts that had emerged from months of discussions, while not perfect, were a “workable solution” to be improved upon. It was in that spirit that the Union was ready to adopt them; however, they had proven “too ambitious” for part of the Committee. He welcomed the decision to submit them to the Chair’s successor, saying the bloc would not be interested in an exercise aimed at reducing their value, as there was now a shadow on the Committee’s work.
The representative of the United Kingdom said it was frustrating that Heads of State could agree on how to change the world, but the Second Committee could not agree on how to change its work “even a little bit”. On that point, the representative of Canada said the Committee’s dysfunction threatened to exile it into “multilateral oblivion”, as its utility was growing harder to discern. “It is up to all of us to seize the moment” to reverse those trends, he warned.
Other speakers struck a more optimistic tone, with Thailand’s representative, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, welcoming the “frank and constructive” exchange of views. His delegation had proposed amendments for strengthening interactions among States and with Bureau members, and supported the idea to conclude work on time. However, States had a sovereign right to submit resolutions at any time. The timely release of Secretariat reports was crucial in that regard, as it would allow delegations time to prepare their positions. The Group also had expected more action-oriented reports.
Further, he said, the issue of programme budget implications was under the exclusive purview of the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), noting that the Group had not received support from its partners on various proposed changes. It would go forward based on the co-facilitators’ recommendations next session.
He urged adopting a well-structured agenda adapted to the 2030 framework. The proposal must be considered carefully, as the Committee’s scope related to the entire United Nations development pillar. Rationalizing the sustainable development agenda should not necessarily eliminate agenda items. States were obliged to determine the Committee’s priorities according to their needs and development levels. Streamlining reporting would not allow for meaningful discussion.
Going forward, the Group was willing to continue discussions on rationalizing the agenda in the General Committee, or during the seventy-first session, but not based on the co-facilitator’s proposal. The process was not one for the President of the General Assembly, and thus, submission of a summary to that Office would not be supported.
The representative of the Maldives, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and associating himself with the Group of 77, supported the Assembly President’s efforts to lead discussions. The Committee was among the most pertinent for small island developing States, which shouldered a heavy burden with the workload. There was a benefit in continuing discussions as they offered the chance to think through the long-term vision. “We can work differently and AOSIS is committed to do so,” he said.
Along similar lines, the representative of the Russian Federation stressed that the Committee’s work was useful despite that it had not reached consensus. Discussions had brought delegates closer to a compromise and greater political will would be helpful. The work was beneficial and could be the basis for future negotiations, and she supported the transfer of that work to the next Chair.
The representative of New Zealand said that while the Committee’s failed experience had firmly shut some doors, other windows remained open. If the Committee was no longer willing to continue discussions that were going nowhere, it would be forced to take action. “There will be change,” she said, underlining that new opportunities would soon present themselves. The Committee needed to determine whether “consensus-reaching” helped to achieve its goals, and if it did not, it should be brave enough to seek other options.
Offering ideas for progress, the representative of Australia said the Committee could use existing tools to improve its functioning. Resolutions should be submitted on deadline and work should be restricted to the regular working hours of the United Nations. The Committee could improve work flow by identifying programme budget implications early. The current volume of resolutions and reporting burden was beyond the scope of even medium-sized missions, which meant that “important work gets lost”.
The representative of Japan said the proposals on both tracks contained good suggestions for moving forward. She agreed that the Committee should adhere to its schedule and deadlines, and that resolution drafters identify programme budget implications early on. “These are the absolute minimum we expect,” she said.
The representative of Indonesia, the incoming Chair, said he would continue to pursue elements of common interest and carry out extensive consultations with Member States, including on how to proceed with work on the revitalization of the Second Committee. “The stakes are quite high,” and the Committee should not forget that its work was for the sake of the United Nations and the world as a whole. He believed the Committee would be able to find a way forward, he said, stressing that the “glass is half full”.
Also speaking today were representatives of Norway, Finland, Belgium and Switzerland.
__________
* The 37th Meeting was covered in Press Release GA/11791 of 13 June 2016.